Grounded Theory in Management Application: A Step by Step

Grounded Theory in Management Application: A Step by Step Arry Pongtiku* In doing Grounded Theory, I endeavored to emphasize the complexity of the world and therefore the freedom, autonomy, and license required to write generated theory that explains what is going on in this world, starting with substantive areas Glaser ( 2002) Abstract The analytic strategy of grounded theory had been used in several studies in various related fields such as management,marketing and tourism. However, the approach to discovering theory from data known as grounded theory is much cited but little understood, the grounded theory has seen relatively little productive discussion in management literature (Partington ,2000).Grounded Theory (GT) is perhaps one of the most abused phrases in qualitative study andincreasingly researchers are making claims to have used a GT approach ( Green and Thorogood ,2004). There are assumptions that Grounded Approach is difficult and could be only better employed by team of researchers or by a more experienced researcher who could dealt with the complexities and contradictions of this approach .GT needs self confidence and creativeness.GT is not easy for the beginners (Mehmetoglu and Altinay, 2004; Munir cited in Salim , 2006). Mode 2 of GT offers more practical approach in building theory in management. Two characteristics of mode 2 enquiries aretransdiciplinarity and emphasis on tacit knowledge. This paper will describestep by step in data analysis of GT and support references as well as my experience as a grounded researcher I. Introduction Grounded theory methodology was firstly introduced by Glaser and Strauss in 1967 with their phenomenal book The Discovery of Grounded Theory . The Grounded Theory Perspective cited in Glaser (2002) argued: All is data is a well known Glaser dictum. What does it means? It means exactly what is going on in the research scene is the data, whatever the source, whether interview, observations, documents, in whatever combination. It is not only what is being told, how it is being told and the conditions of its being told, but also all data surrounding what is being told. It means what is going on must be figured out exactly what it is to be used for, that is conceptualization, not for accurate description. Data is always as good as far as it goes, and there is always more data to keep correcting the categories with more relevant properties .Brown et al (2002) suggest grounded theory methodology has following eight assumptions: 1. The need to get out into the field to discover what is really going on (i.e., to gain firsthand information taken from its source. 2. The relevance of theory, grounded in data, to the development of a discipline and as a basis for social action. 3. The complexity and variability of phenomena and of human action. 4. The belief that persons are actors who take an active role in responding to problematic situations. 5. The realization that persons act on the basis of meaning. 6. The understanding that meaning is defined and redefined through interaction. 7. A sensitivity to the evolving and unfolding nature of events (process). 8. An awareness of the interrelationships among conditions (structure), action (process) and consequences. *National Health Consultant for Papua and West Papua and Netherlands Leprosy Relief; FormerCSR consultant for NP Oil and Gas Company-Rombebai BV. Visiting lecturer for management in University of Cendrawasih and University of YAPIS Papua. Correspondence: arrypongtiku@ymail.com 1 Glaser concludes two most important properties of conceptualizing for generating grounded theory are that concepts are abstract of time, place, and people, and that concepts have enduring grab. The appeal of these two properties can literally go on forever as an applied way of seeing events (Glaser, 2002). A theory which is generated from grounded method must be based on a phenomenon, not started on data (Emzir, 2008). As cited in Munir (2006), Strauss and Corbin say (1990) theories can not be built with actual incidents or activities as observed or reported; that are from raw data. A theory is built from concept, not directly from data. Concept is resulted from the conceptualization of data: The incidents, event, happenings are taken as, or analyzed as, potential indicators of phenomena, which are thereby given conceptual labels. If a respondent say to researcher, Each day I spread my activities over the morning, resting between shaving and bathing, then the researcher might label this phenomenon as pacing . As the researcher encounters other incident, and when after comparison to the first, they appear to resemble the same phenomena, then these, too, can be labeled as pacing . Only by comparing incidents and naming like phenomena with the same term can the theorist accumulate the basic units for theory.Aword of Phenomenon (New Webster s Dictionary and Roget s Thesaurus, 1992) means anything appearing or observed especially if having scientific interest. (Partington, 2000) says that phenomenology refers to reality is socially constructed, and consists of individuals interpretation of their circumstances. Knowledge comes from the penetration by the researches of the meanings that make up the individuals views of reality. The researcher s role is to reconstruct those meanings . Strauss and Corbin (1990) quoted in Munir (2006), Categories are higher in level and more abstract than the concepts they represent. They are generated through the same analytic process of making comparisons to highlight similarities and differences. Categories are the cornerstone of developing theory. They provide the means by which the theory can be integrated. We can show how the grouping of concepts forms categories by continuing with the example above. In addition to the concept of pacing, the analysis might generate the concepts of self-medicating , resting and watching one s diet . While coding, the analyst may note that, although these concepts are different in form, they seem to represent activities directed toward a similar process: keeping an illness under control. They could be grouped under a more abstract heading, they category: Self Strategies for controlling illness . A qualitative research aims to understand a phenomenon and develops researcher s imaginations. It does not take for explanation or interpretation among variables as in quantitative method (Salladien, 2008). Neuman (2003) explains that some people believe that qualitative data are soft, intangible and immaterial. Such data are so fuzzy and elusive that researchers cannot really capture them. This is not necessarily the cas`e. Qualitative data are empherical. They involve documenting real events, recording what people say (with words, gesture and tone), observing specific behaviors, studying written documents or examining visual images. These are all concrete aspects of the world .Strauss and Corbin, 1990 cited in Neuman, 2003 explain that grounded theory is a qualitative research method that uses a systematic set of procedures to develop an inductively derived theory about a phenomenon. Bungin (2007) in a provocative way says that researcher comes into the field with empty headed or without bringing any concept, theory or hypothesis. It is indeed phenomenon, inductively observed as Glaser and Strauss s report on phenomena between hospital staffs and dying patients in their book. However, Kuhn, 1962 and Feyerabend, 1962 cited in Crompton (accessed on 3/25/2009) observations are not entirely free from the influences of theories. Partington (2000) says the paradigm model is at the core of Strauss and Corbin s method. It consists of a systematized cause- and effect schema which the researcher uses to explicate relationships between categories and subcategories. It can describe as follows: (A) Causal Conditions --- (B) Phenomenon---(C) Context--- (D) Intervening Conditions--- (E) Action/Interaction Strategies --- (F) Consequences. The Grounded research model emphasizes 2 an observation method and develops an intuitive relationship among variables studied. The steps of research are started by examining formulations and redeveloping propositions during generating a new theory (Salladien, 2008). Faisal S (2007) describes the grounded theory is considered as an alternative approach towards a classical one (verificative study). The grounded theory moves from the bottom to the top namely empherical data-conceptual- theoretical. Similarly, Moleong (2008),Pandit (1996) the process of developing the grounded theory is Theoretical Sampling (1)---Data collections(2)--Data ordering(3)---Data Analysis(4)--- theory development (5)---if theory saturation the study finished(6) and if not saturation the study continued. Dick (accessed 8/19/2002) says that over time, the grounded theory study works through the following mostly-overlapping phases: data collection, note taking, coding, memoing, sorting and writing. This research tries to understand and to analyze more deeply the relationship based on facts (data, interview and observation) and finally compared with literature review in generating a theory. Creswell (1994) shows an inductive model of thinking or logic to build a new theory as follows: Researcher Develops a Theory or Compares Pattern with Other Theories Researcher Looks for Patterns (theories) Researcher Forms Categories Researcher Asks Questions Researcher Gather Information Figure 1.The Inductive Model of Research in a Qualitative Study Source: Creswell, 1994 II. The grounded theory approach Mode 2 Bryman (1988) observes In spite of the frequency which Glaser and Strauss and the idea of grounded theory are cited in the literature, there are comparatively few instances of its application (cited in Partington, 2000). Partington (2000) comments that the difficulty of applying universal grounded theory prescriptions is borne out by experience with doctoral students working the field of organization and management who attempted to follow the Strauss and Corbin approach but have abandoned it because of its bewildering complexity. Indeed, in published management research there is little evidence of the successful application of any precisely delineated, prescribed approach. Partington examined such four management grounded theory exemplars: Brown and Eisenhardt (1977)---multiple cases studies, Gersick (1994)---single case study, Gioa and Chittipeddi (1991)---single case study and Kram and Isabella (1985)---pairs of individuals. In each of these four exemplars the output of the studies is of mode 1 type, primarily aimed at an academic audience. The purpose of development into theories with a direct, practical use was a secondary consideration. As a result, although the 3 theories generated by these studies contribute to our understanding of social processes, they are unlikely to be of direct interest to managers. The Mode 2 was initially introduced in 1994 by six authors :Michael Gibbons, Camille Limoges, Helga Nowotny, Simon Schwartzman,Peter Scott, and Martin Trow through their book of The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies (Nowotny et al, 2003). Partington, 2000 and Crompton, accessed on 3/25/2009 note in the field of management, the mode 2 knowledge-production system brings together the supply side of knowledge, including universities, with the demand side , including business. The whole system depends for its effectiveness on a rapid interplay between management theory and practice. Kurt Lewin says Nothing is so practical as a good theory cited in Human Resource Development Review,2005. Partington (2000) shows how examination of the distinctive characteristics of a specific research aim can usefully transform Strauss and Corbin s model into a procedure which is directly applicable to the development of S-O-R theories in mode 2 management research by Gibbons et al. The differences of Mode 1 and Mode 2 are presented as below, Table 1. Mode 1 and Mode 2: two different models for undertaking research Different Research Mode I Mode II Models Steering mechanism The academic discipline Problem based, multi disciplinary Authorization Professional rules Scientific & societal rules Objectives New theories Usefulness Type of knowledge General Specific Time perspective Long term Short term Responsibility The scientific community A societal responsibility Actors Researchers Participants & researchers Relationship Hierarchical Equal Works forms Planned, predetermined Flexible, interactive Approach Closed Open Physical proximity Distant Close Actors Universities Research & Development centers, institutes, companies ,regional universities Relations Object relations Subject relations Strategy First discovery, then Simultaneous discovery and application application Source: Svensson, Ellström and Brulin,2009 Chopra (2005) in Dictionary of Management defines Stimulus is initiating step intended to provoke a predictable response. Cognition is process which uses all human senses to observe the outside world and to form perception attitudes, comprehension and memory. Luthans (2002) says cognition is the act of knowing an item of information. Under this framework, cognitions precede behavior and constitute input into the person s thinking, perception, problem solving, and information processing. If we trace back, we learn that B.F. Skinner, a modern behaviorism, who is widely recognized for his contributions to psychology explains respondent behavior (those behavior elicited by stimuli) but not the more complex operant behavior. It is for example: the S-R approach in physical reflex, when stuck by a pin (S), the person will flinch (R), or when tapped below the kneecap (S), the person will extend the lower leg (R). He strengthens the importance of the response-stimulus (R-S) relationship. The organism has to operate on the environment (thus the term operant conditioning) in order to receive the desirable consequence. Several 4 studies from Davis and Luthans; Luthans and Kreitner as well as Albert Bandura, social learning takes the position that behavior can be best explained in terms of a continuous reciprocal interaction among cognitive, behavioral, and environmental determinants. The person and the environmental situation do not function as independent units but in conjunction with the behavior itself, reciprocally interact to determine behavior (Luthans, 2002). Raimond (1998) includes The Stimulus-Response Model by Rosch (1992) in their paper Where Do Strategic Ideas Come From? As follows: Figure 2 is a diagram of the behaviorist world-view. The first arrow, the stimulus, is something that the experimenter does to the organism (human or animal); it is in the external world, observable by everyone. The second arrow is what the organism does after the stimulus, also something observable by everyone. The square between the two arrows is the mind, considered as black box, a box that is not publicly observable and hence not subject to scientific investigation, hence unnecessary to talk about. For the strict behaviorists, the biological organism was also in black box. So psychologists could be completely objective; they need only chart the relationships between stimuli and responses. Stimulus Response Figure 2. The stimulus-response model Source: Rosch, 1992 Furthermore, the information processing model takes the view that when the information or stimulus comes into the brain of the organism it has to be processed in order that the appropriate response can be made (Raimond, 1998). S-O-R (Environmental Stimulus Cognition-Management Action) theories are concerned with how people s understanding of their environment leads to actions. The assumptions behind grounded theory s symbolic interactionist origins match this consideration. Two features of Mode 2 are: First, transdiciplinary research is less likely to be based on the existing, highly developed theoretical frameworks from bounded disciplinary traditions, which tend to characterize Mode 1. Second, Mode 2 emphasizes tacit knowledge, which has not yet been codified, written down and stored. Academics and managers attempt to learn, working together from one another in virtuous cycle of understanding, explication and action in a mutually transdisciplinary frame (Partington :2000). Takeuchi (1998) argues what Western companies need to do is to unlearn their existing view of knowledge and pay more attention to (1) tacit knowledge,(2) creating new knowledge, and (3) having everyone in the organization be involved. Japanese companies have advanced their position in international competition because of their skill and expertise at organizational knowledge creation, which is the key to the distinctive way that Japanese companies innovate. Tacit knowledge is highly personal and hard to formalize and share with others. Subjective insights, intuitions and hunches fall into category of knowledge. Tacit knowledge is deeply rooted in an individual s action and experience, as well as in the ideals, values or emotions he or she embraces. Furthermore, tacit knowledge contains an important cognitive dimension. Yet they cannot be articulated very easily, this dimension of tacit knowledge shapes the way we perceive the world around us. 5 The World Stimulus Attention Sensory Register (very short term) Short term memory Problem solving Long-term memory (knowledge, language, goals, etc) The World Response Decision making Figure 3. The information processing model Source: Rosch, 1992 The simplified and revised model of S-O-R will be shown below. Simplified paradigm model Revised Approach Environmental Stimulus Interviews Cognition S-O-R Management Action Emphasis on normative causal model Figure 4. Revised grounded theory approach & Paradigm Model Source: Partington, 2000 Mode 2 for this application analyzes recollections of past events, often recorded in interview data, to develop explanation of management action. Two characteristics of mode 2 enquiry are transdiciplinarity and emphasis on tacit knowledge. The approach however offered differs in two important ways from the much cited universal grounded theory model originated by Glaser and Strauss (1967) and later proceduralized by Strauss and Corbin (1990). First, it acknowledges that the form of theories of management actions which will satisfy the cotemporary demands of mode 2 research is different from the form of integrated sociological theory for which the original grounded theory approach was developed. Second it takes account of differences between the ontological assumptions underlying the use of retrospective data for analyzing management action, and those associated with participant observation, the pivotal strategy of grounded 6 theory s symbolic interactionist roots. The results would be a simplified, more direct approach which works for the specific purpose of generating useful, consensually valid theory (Partington, 2000). Crompton, accessed on 3/25/2008 in her paper about Knowledge Production and Management in 21st Century, in regard of new knowledge and methodology, she states that learning is defined here as any (more or less permanent) change of behavior, which is the result of experiences; the acquisition of knowledge, information, values, belief, norms and behavior (where values, beliefs and norms are dependent on culture). However as learning produces new knowledge which is the basis of innovation, and it has been shown that learning and knowledge are a social cultural phenomena then researchers need to walk the walk and talk the talk of ordinary people in situ . I suggest that transdiciplinary approaches using multimethodologies will be helpful in understanding complex social and cultural situations. Gioia and Pitre (1990) broadly define theory as any coherent description or explanation of observed or experience phenomena. As cited in Luthans (2002) theory is the answer to queries of why. Theory is about the connections among the phenomena a story about why acts, events, structure, and thoughts occur. Theory emphasizes the nature of causal relationships, identifying what comes first as well as the timing of such events. Strong theory, in our view, delves into the underlying process so as to understand the systematic reasons for a particularly occurrence or non-occurrence . As cited in Totok Hari Wibowo (2005) some scholars talk about knowledge creation. Giddens notes all social actors, all human beings are highly learned in respect of knowledge which they possess and apply, in the production and reproduction of day-to-day social encounters. He distinguish between discursive and practical knowledge, the former refers to knowledge that the actors are able to articulate (what is said), and the latter refers to tacit knowledge, which actors are able to draw on in action but are unable to express (what is simply done).Reflexive refers to the capacity of humans to routinely observe and understand what they are doing while they are doing it. It is not merely self-consciousness but includes continuous monitoring or physical and social contexts and activities either their own or others. Other scholar says knowledge conversion takes place within ba . It is the physical and /or mental space that enables the process of conversion. Ba is a Japanese term, which literary means space or place. The concept of ba was originally proposed by Kitaro Nishida. The concept of ba concerns far more than physical elements, it includes perceptions throughout body and mind. Therefore ba offers a context. In order to understand creativity as a tacit knowledge we cannot ignore situated cognition and action. In knowledge creation, generation and regeneration of ba is the key, because ba provides the energy, quality and location to perform the individual conversions and to move along the knowledge spiral. As cited in Muhadjir (1996), Glaser and Strauss suggest, in order achieving more optimal level of the new theory, the grounded research should be carried out in non traditional areas, where the place is limited references. Eisenhardt (1989) also says that this research approach is especially appropriate in new topic area. III. A.Data Analysis Mehmetoglu and Alinay (2006) comment, the focus on qualitative research has unfortunately been mainly confined to methods of data collection and neglecting a more significant aspect, namely data analysis. The data analysis in a grounded theory as Glaser and Strauss suggestions contains: Incidents of phenomena in data are coded into categories. By comparing each incident with previous incidents in the same category, the researcher develops theoretical properties of categories and the dimensions of those properties. As the study progresses, the focus changes from comparing incidents with one another to comparing incidents with properties of the category that resulted from initial comparisons of incidents. The theoretical sampling and constant comparison processes lead towards the theoretical saturation of a 7 reduced set categories within the boundaries of the emerging theory. Memos-records of ideas relating to categories and the categories themselves form the basis of the written theory. Explored in different field settings and broader contexts, substantive theory may be developed into more abstract, generalized formal theory (Partington (2007), Wignjosoebroto.S (2006). In discovering theory, one generates conceptual categories or their properties from evidence, and then the evidence from which the category emerged is used to demonstrate the concept. The evidence may not necessarily be accurate beyond doubt, but the concept is undoubtedly a relevant theoretical abstraction about what is going on in the area studied. Furthermore, the concept itself will not change, while even the most accurate facts change (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). Partington (2000) says the twin basics of grounded theory are theoretical sampling, whereby the process of data collection is controlled by the emerging theory, together with constant comparison method of joint data coding and analysis. As importance of coding issues, Awad and Ghaziri (2004) in their text book of Knowledge Management say codification isa prerequisite to knowledge transfer. From a knowledge management view, codification is converting tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge in a usable form for organizational members. From an information system view, it is converting undocumented to documented information. Regardless of the view, codification is making specific knowledge (tacit and explicit) visible, accessible, and usable for value-added decision making, no matter what form it may take. This means that: a) Tacit knowledge (in people heads) such as human expertise is identified and leveraged through a form that delivers the highest return to the business. It may be through knowledge-sharing events, organized directories, yellow pages, or other means that will connect the ones who need the expertise to source of expertise. b) Explicit knowledge should be organized, categorized, indexed, and accessed via the company s intranet or some other means to make it visible, accessible and usable on paper, in documents, in data base. Codifying tacit knowledge is complex and is more of an art than a science. Several different ways of encoding facts and relationships to codify knowledge exist. They include knowledge maps, decision tables, decision trees, frames, production rules and software agents (Awad and Ghaziri, 2004). As already mentioned in the previous paragraph, there were some levels of codification in grounded theory, however more specifically described as cited in Mehmetoglu and Altinay( 2006), Brown et al (2002) are as follows (a) Open coding as the process of breaking down, examining, comparing, conceptualizing and categorizing data. Data were broken down by asking simple questions such as what, where, how, when, how much, etc. Data that were initially broken down were then compared and similar incidents were grouped together and given the same conceptual label. This process of grouping concepts at a higher, more abstract level is termed categorizing ;(b) Axial coding is whereas open coding divides the data into concepts and categories, axial coding puts them back together in new ways by making connections between a category and its subcategories. The focus of axial coding is to create a model that details the specific conditions that give rise to a phenomenon s occurrence. During axial coding, the emerging categories, themes or pattern were validated by comparing the information with other informants, comparing the emerging themes with the information obtained through observation and secondary analysis of documents from and about the organization. We then make a theoretical memo: a sort story which plays an important role and assists in the process of creating order and making sense of data. The process of open coding, axial coding and writing and developing memos lead to a number of finalized and saturated categories; (c) Selective coding is the next type of coding involved the integration of categories (axial) to form an initial theoretical framework. The codes and categories are explored further by revisiting the coded statements, with attention being given to understanding the inter-relationship. All the data were finally sifted and charted. 8 Mehmetoglu and Alinay (2006) summarize that the analytic strategy in practices of the Grounded Theory consisted of three concurrent stages / activities namely: Stage 1: familiarization, Stage 2: coding, conceptualization and ordering, and Stage 3: enfolding literature. Miles and Huberman (1994) also cited in Sugiyono (2007) summarize an interactive model for data analysis data as below: Data Collection Data Display Data reduction Conclusions: drawing/verifying Figure 5. An Interactive model for data analysis III. B.Step by step in data analysisin GT (my experience) 1. As all data are available (daily notes/observation, emails, film ,photos and other related documents),I firstly selected instances of Stimulus and Actions to prepare transcription. I collected as much as possible of Stimulus and Actions from different sources of the available data. 2. As cited in Munir (2006), Strauss and Corbin say (1990) theories cannot be built with actual incidents or activities as observed or reported; that are from raw data. A theory is built from concept, not directly from data. Concept is resulted from the conceptualization of data: The incidents, event, happenings are taken as, or analyzed as, potential indicators of phenomena, which are thereby given conceptual labels. Therefore, from the transcription (Stimulus and Action), I made headings and categories in excel program of computer, we called it Open Coding. Open coding refers to that part of analysis which deals with labeling and categorizing of phenomena as indicated by data. I also put code of number/sources, so it can be easily searched if needed. Data that were initially broken down then compared and similar incidents were grouped together and given the same conceptual label. This process of grouping concept at a higher, more abstract level is termed categorizing (Dey,1998; Punch,1998 cited Mehmetoglu and Altinay, 2004).The process of open coding to develop categories and properties may be extended/ repeated when we find new ideas/values from rereading process of transcription or finding new additional data. Categories is roughly equivalent to themes or variables and properties (in effect their subcategories). I managed it in key words. To sump up, during open coding the process are: transcription (stimulus and action) Concept--heading key words (category), so it will be simple. 3. When I processed the open coding, I might get expression of important categories and similarities. I copied the open coding data into other new spread sheet. I then came to phase of Axial Coding which puts those data back together in new ways with two steps: Step one was managing similar categories and Step two was making connections between a category and its subcategories.With cut and paste techniques, I processed 9 4. 5. 6.I 7. 8. 9. the Axial Coding as one by one until empty into the new spread sheet. During axial coding, the emerging categories, themes or patterns were validated by (1)comparing the information with other informants, (2) comparing the emerging themes with the information obtained from through observation and review primary and secondary documents (3) checking validity of choice of themes with selected informants (Mehmetoglu and Altinay,2006). In addition, I think ,it must be based on true story of the process in the field. Axial coding is the process of relating codes (categories and properties) to each other, via a combination of inductive and deductive thinking, grounded theorists emphasize causal relationship, and fit things into a basic frame of generic relationship (Borgatti, accessed on 11/26/2009 and Munir,2006). From entire process of Axial Coding in the study, number of categories were made. During copy and paste in excel spread sheet in order to grouping similar categories as mentioned above, the researcher got expression of frequency of categories and its relationship. In order to understand and test its comprehensive relationships in this axial coding. I drew it with freehand in a large piece of paper .I tried making connections among them of all important categories and subcategories focused for acognitive process which offers a consensually valid and informative link between stimulus and action. From that process, I selected core categories or some related categories were merged and made its links, we called it Selective Coding. This selective coding formed the initial theoretical framework. Dick (accessed on 8/19/2002) said after a time one category (occasionally more) will be found to emerge with high frequency of mention, and to be connected to many of the other categories which a re emerging. This is a core category. It is hazardous to choose a core category too early in data collection. Furthermore, Munir (2006) explains researchers in Grounded Theory always try to find the dominant process from a social situation. then described its relationships in narrative /a story, we called it Memo. The core categories which have been developed must be the sun, standing in orderly systematic relationship to its planets (Strauss and Corbin cited in Pandit, 1996).Memo continues in parallel with data collection and coding. A memo is a note contains hypothesis/propositions, and particularly about relationships between categories. Memo consist of comments or thoughts on incidents and linkages were recorded initially as sentences and as the analysis moved on they were updated and formulated as long as the research still carried out. In time core category and the categories related have saturated. By the time this happens, we will have accumulated a large number of memos. Experts of Grounded Theory such as Glaser, Strauss and Corbin as well Bob Dick placed that memoing are very important. I think original theory comes from memo. Now, I have a new theory that can explain its relationship in a model of specific context; we called it Substantive /Emerging Theory. However, if we improved the specific items and make it more general, lets we see, it might become Formal Theory. I might compare the emerged theory with extant literature and examine what is similar, what is different and why. Glaser and Strauss (accessed on 7/20/2009) say it is often best to begin with generating substantive theory from data and then let formal theory or revisions to existing formal theory emerge from substantive theory. More studies generating substantive theory will ultimately generate and improve formal theory. Formulating theoretical propositions 10 IV. Validation of the theory Glaser and Strauss (1967, accessed on 7/20/2009) say a good practical ground theory should have some characteristics namely fit the substantive area it will be used in, understandable by laymen in that area, general enough to apply to many situations in the area and allow the user some control over the theory as the daily situation change over time. In addition, Glaser suggests validity in its traditional sense is consequently not an issue in GT, which instead should be judged by fit, relevance, workability and modifiability (Glaser, accessed on 7/20/2009).Albert Einstein (Wikipedia, accessed on 6/17/2009) puts The supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience . Partington (2000) suggests following mode 2 principles, one of the main features of the study was involvement of informants in the validation and application of its findings. Here, S-O-R paradigm model by Partington to validate to informants whether theory is relevant to the real phenomena and is applicable to the world of management as presented below: Table 2. Validation of theory based S-O-R Paradigm No Elements Management Action Use External Agents of Change Planning and control formality Control of the pace of change Staff participation in decisions Justification of actions Definition of individuals roles Cognition Autonomy Resources Self-efficacy Opportunity The expected cooperation of staff Environmental stimulus Public ..OWNERSHIP ..Private Traditional SELF-IMAGE .Modern Member .GROUP MEMBERSHIP. Independent Isomorphic CONFIRMITY .Differentiating Stable HISTORY Threatened Project ORIENTATION .Process High .TECHNICAL EXPERTISE .Low Confirmation of Informants Yes/No explain Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No/not obvious Yes Yes/No, I prefer to HISTORYusing term benefit , instead of threatened Yes/No Yes/No V. Working out problems in doing Grounded Theory There is an assumption that Grounded Approach is difficult and could be only better employed by team of researchers or by a more experienced researcher who could dealt with the complexities and contradictions of this approach (Mehmetoglu and Altinay, 2004). Munir cited in Salim ( 2006) says Grounded Method needs the qualified researchers who have high flying hours, self confidence, creativeness and experience, and this is more likely not found in the young researcher. Since its analytical model is continuous as long as field data is being collected, GT is not easy for the beginners. However, I feel, this issue is not all true, it actually can be improved if the researcher really involves in the field study, using modified approach such as Mode 2, correspondence with Grounded Researcher who have experience and last but 11 not least perseverance and want to experiment. With this opportunity, I would share experience in working out problems in doing Grounded Theory Method, as follows: 1. The first critical question came to me, was the theory which I developed really Grounded Theory? Bungin (2007) in a provocative way says that researcher comes into the field with empty headed or without bringing any concept, theory or hypothesis. It is indeed real phenomenon of what occurs in the situation. As cited in Dick (accessed on 8/19/2002) Glaser recommends reading widely while avoiding the literature most closely related to what we are researching. His fear, our reading may otherwise constrain our coding and memoing. Dick s own view, however, is that it makes sense to access relevant literature as it becomes relevant and part of the data collection procedures. Reading references is less an issue for Glaser. An effective strategy is, at first, literally to ignore the literature of theory and fact on the area under study, in order to assure that the emergence of categories will not be contaminated by concepts more suite to different areas cited in Glaser and Strauss (accessed on 7/20/2009). Altinay and Mehmetoglu (2006) place the enfolding literature is stage 3 or the last stage of analysis procedures of Grounded Theory in order to asking what it was similar to, what did it contradict and why. On the contrary, Kuhn, 1962 and Feyerabend, 1962 cited in Crompton (accessed on 3/25/2009) observations are not entirely free from the influences of theories. Except a framework of the study, I took time in this study and did not have to jump into conclusion so quick and let the data spoke for itself, and then the meanings would emerge. Partington (2000) says that the transdiciplinary nature of mode 2 research means that pre-existing theoretical frameworks are likely to be fragmented or rudimentary. With the grounded theory approach this is not a disadvantage, since the purpose of the approach is to build new theories from data in context. Mode 2 research is often aimed at capturing tacit knowledge. The retrospective, reflexive accounts of managers and other organizational actors will be an important source of this knowledge. One of key quotations of Deming (Wikipedia, accessed on 6/12/2009) is The most important things are unknown or unknowable , analogous to earthquake that disrupts service, other earth-shattering events that most affect an organization will be unknown or unknowable, in advance. During the time of data collection and process of analysis, I read relevant references and supporting documents (literature as data) and lets the study flowed. Since I got the draft of the theory, I finally searched more deeply references particularly references ofcritics of the existing /related theory that I would produce. So this way would not so much hinder my genuine concept. In addition, I agree, GT should be better selected as a method only for something which not so much clear or need to find new perceptions (Stern,1994 cited in Munir, 2006). Glaser and Strauss cited in in Muhadjir (1996) suggest, in order achieving more optimal level of the new theory, the grounded research should be carried out in non traditional areas, where the place is limited references. This approach is especially appropriate in new topic area (Eisenhardt,1989). 2. Methodology applied this study was Grounded Theory of mode 2 which paid attention of balance between theory and practice in management. Mode 2 was clearly described the importance of involvement of participants and researcher through multidisciplinary approaches. However, the combination of learning from informants and interpretation of researcher did not follow the Hermeneutics principles by Giddens for the qualitative approach as usual. Giddens says we learned from informants (emic perspectives) through the first order understanding and the second order understanding (Sanapiah in Bungin 2003). I think, interpretations through informants who had various backgrounds and through researcher were considered as advantage and mutually strengthened. One core method of GT by Glaser is constant comparisons that come from various data, so observation, interview and review documents must be synergy. As Takeuchi (1998) says 12 3. 4. 5. 6. Tacit knowledge, concerned by Mode 2, is deeply rooted in an individual s action and experience, as well as in the ideals, values or emotions he or she embraces. Sociologist such as Mead and Blumer with their theories of symbolic interaction emphasized effect of meaning and symbols towards action and human interactions (Ritzer and Goodman, 2003). It means interpretation of data do not solely find from interviews but from observation and understanding of the researcher towards the social situation. Grounded Theory needs good rapport of researcher so the researcher can take as much as possible information. In this study, the researcher worked as mediator/coordinator of CSR program in the study so it was very possible. In addition, Thus, this issue should be not a problem or contradiction. Overall, one of difficult parts of doing Grounded Theory that I felt was preparation including selecting, rewriting transcription from different sources of data. This spent a lot of time for me like long journey especially needed language translation. In contrast, when I came in the phase of analysis particularly Selective Coding, the theory arose more quickly than I imagined, Glaser calls drugless trip (Dick, accessed 8/19/2002). I found such situation was really exciting and encouraging. I could express what was really happening in the situation. There was a feeling of freedom, autonomy and license to write (Glaser,2002). To repeat GT principles by Glaser, it is obvious for those who implement Grounded research should have some capabilities namely note taking (grasping key issues), theoretical sampling (working with diversity of samples), triangulation (constant comparison) and the most important is theoretical sensitivity where researcher is able to get sort of key words/ideas from the data and perceive as variables and its relationship. It is the most creative job. Issue of saturation is found in GT. Green and Thorogood (2004) comment that GT is perhaps one of the most abused phrases in qualitative study. Increasingly, researchers are making claims to have used a GT approach in what emerges as rather superficial thematic content analysis. An analysis that has used GT should provide a detailed, saturated account of data, rather than a list of key themes. Pandit (1996) the process of developing the grounded theory is Theoretical Sampling (1)---Data collections(2)---Data ordering(3)---Data Analysis(4)--- theory development (5)---if theory saturation the study finished (6) and if not saturation the study continued. From experience, I felt saturation in the three situations; firstly I collected data from time to time when I felt that various data (primary and secondary data) were enough, I then stopped it. Secondly during process of open coding, similar headings have many times come up and the kind of headings/categories become limited and limited, I stopped the process of open coding. Thirdly, during the process of axial coding and selective coding, I made relationship among categories and subcategories (properties) or among core categories and its categories. I felt diminishing returns when no more/enough relationship produced; I stopped the process. Dick (accessed on 8/19/2002) says in collecting and interpreting data about a particular category, in time you reach a point of diminishing returns is saturation. It must be noted the collection of data is a continuous process and simultaneous. Yet you have already processed data analysis, you get other additional information/data you should include and process it again. Mode 2, of course, is simpler and shorter than traditional GT approach. I think Mode 2 is significantly different if compared Mode 1 (traditional GT) in few things such as preparation of data (collecting and selecting data focused on Stimulus and Actions), process of axial coding and using retrospective data as well as involvement many informants in developing knowledge . Mode 2 overcomes the complexities of GT. My research experience in doctorate of management science, although Creswell and Clark (2007) gave examples of Embedded Design where a research embed qualitative data within a quantitative methodology, as might be done in an experimental design or 13 quantitative data could be embedded within a qualitative methodology as could be done in a phenomenology design, however in this case I could not play the mixed methods with embedded Grounded Theory and Experimental Model to describe each other during the DataAnalysis in the Results Chapter except in the Discussion because the objective of this qualitative method was to build a theory. I therefore had to finish analyzing qualitative method firstly and then analyzing quantitative method secondly. However, I believe as my experiance, respectively the quantitative results of pre and post experimental intervention as well as additional data such ashealth statistic of workplace, and Malcolm Baldrige score card played a supplemental role within the overall design namely supported strengthened , triangulated and qualified the main qualitative analysis in order to build a theory finally. REFERENCES Awad,E.M ., and Ghaziri,H.M .2004. Knowledge Management, International Edition,Pearson Education International, pp 186-211. Borgatti , S. Introduction to Grounded Theory. http://www.analytictech.com/mb870/introtoGT.htm, accessed on 11/26/2009/ Brown, S. C., Stevens ,R.A., Troiano, P.F., Schneider, M.K. 2002.Exploring Complex Phenomena: Grounded Theory in Student Affairs Research,Journal of College Student Development, vol 43: 2. Bungin, H.M. 2007. Penelitian Kualitatif:Komunikasi,Ekonomi,Kebijakan Publik dan Ilmu Sosial Lainnya, Edisi 1,Pranada Media Group Kencana, pp 217-218. Chopra,S. Dictionary of Management,K.S.Papersbacks, New Delhi,2005, pp 66,364. Creswell ,J. W. 1994. Research Design Qualitative & Quantitative Approaches, Sage Publications, pp.95-96. Creswell ,J.W and Plano Clark ,V.L. 2007. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, Sage Publications, pp 7, 32,67,68. st Crompton ,H. Knowledge Production and Management in the 21 Century, Manchester Metropolitan University Business School Working Paper Series,http//www.google.com, accessed on 3/25/2009. Dick. B. Grounded theory: a thumbnail sketch, Resource papers in action research,http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/grounded.html, accessed on 8/19/2002. Eisenhardt, K.M. 1989. Building Theories from Case Study Research, Academy of Management Review,vol 14,No 4,p 532. Emzir. 2008. Metodologi Penelitian Pendidikan Kuantitatif & Kualitatif, PT RajaGrafindo, p.200. Encyclopaedia Britanica,2008.Encyclopedia Britanica Library- Advance Level content for older students and adults, The Britanica Sofware. Faisal,S .2007. Penelitian Tiori Grounded,sebagai Alternatif model analisis dalam studi-studi kualitatif in Analisis Data Penelitian Kualitatif,Bungin (Ed), PT RajaGrafindo Persada, pp 119-130. Gioia,D.A and Pitre,E. 1990. Multiparadigma Perspectives on Theory Building,Academy of Management Review, Vol15 No 4 pp 584-602. Glaser ,B.G. 2002. Constructivist Grounded Theory, Forum Qualitative Social Research, vol 3, no.3, p. 1,http://www.cuhp.org/admin/EditDocStore/ws4%, accessed on 09/26/2008. Glaser.,B.G. 2002. Conceptualization: On theory and theorizing using grounded theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1 (2).Article 3. http://www.ualberta.ca/-ijqm/, accessed on1/3/2009. Glaser, B.G and Strauss, A. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory:, Strategies for Qualitative Research, Sociology Press, California, p 23. Glaser, B.G and Strauss, A. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Aldine Publishing Company Chicago (summary) http://www.groundedtheory.com, accessed on 7/20/2009. Glaser,Grounded theory (Glaser)-Wikipedia,the free encyclopedia, http://www.grounded theory.com, accessed on 7/20/2009 Green,J and Thorogood,N. 2004. Qualitative Methods for Health Research, Sage Publication, London,pp 176-199. 14 Human Resource Development Review.2005. Nothing So Practical as a Good Theory, vol 4, no.2, 111-113, http://www.google.com,accessed on 17 June 2009 Luthans, F. Organizational Behavior, Ninth Edition, McGraw-Hill,New York, 2002, pp.20-27. Mehmetoglu,M. and Alinay, L.2006. Examination of Grounded Theory Analysis with an Application to Hospitality Research, International Journal of Hospitality Management 25(2006) pp 12-13. Mereli ,Y. and McGee .1998. Information Competence and Knowledge Creation at the Corporate Centre in Strategic Flexibility : Managing in a Turbulent Environment, Hamel G,Prahalad CK,Thomas H and O Neal D(Editors), John Wiley & Sons,Chichester,England,pp.213-214. Miles,M.B. and Huberman, A.M. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis, 2nd Edition, Sage publications, p12. Moleong, L. J. 2008. Metode Penelitian Kualitatif, PT Remaja Rosdakarya, Bandung, p 74. Muhadjir, H.N. 1996.Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif(Edisi III), Rakesarasin,Yogyakarta,pp 88-89. Munir,N.S.T. 2006. Grounded Theory in Teori dan Paradigma Penelitian Sosial (Salim,A) ,Edisi Kedua, Tiara Wacana,Yogyakarta,pp 176-197. th Neuman,W.L .2003. Social Research Methods:Qualitative and Quantitative Aprroaches, 5 edition, Allyn and Bacon,Boston, pp 52, 146. New Webster s Dictionary and Roget s Thesaurus .1992.,Ottenheimer Publishers Inc, USA, pp 85,87,247,283,387. Pandit, N.R. 1996. The Creation of Theory: A Recent Application of the Grounded Theory Method, The Qualitative Report,Volume 2, Number 4, http;//www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR2-4/pandit.html. Partington, D. 2000. Building Grounded Theories of Management Action, British Journal of Management, Vol.11, pp 91-102. Pongtiku, A.2010.Corporate Social Responsibility during Gas Exploration Phase: A Competitive Stakeholder Theory, Dissertation ,Doctorate in Management Science, University of Brawijaya. Raimond, P. 1998.Where Do Strategic Ideas Come from? in Strategic Flexibility : Managing in a Turbulent Environment, Hamel G,Prahalad CK,Thomas H and O Neal D(Editors), John Wiley & Sons,Chichester,England,pp 235-246. Ritzer,G. and Goodman,D.J. 2007. Teori Sosiologi Modern (translation),6th edition, Kencana, Jakarta,pp 289-294, 506-520. Salladien.2008. Memahami Research Questions,Focus,Tiori, Paradigma, Analisis Data dan Existing Models dalam Terapan Penelitian Kualitatif ( termasuk supplemen bahan presentasi) disajikan pada Workshop Metodologi dan Tindak Lanjut Penelitian (Action Plan) Bagi Dosen Cangkok di PPS Universitas Brawijaya. Sugiyono. 2007. Memahami Penelitian Kualitatif, CV Alfabeta Bandung, pp 92,137,183. Sugiyono .2008. Metode Penelitian Bisnis,CV Alfabeta Bandung, pp 430-432. Svensson,L., Ellström, P.E.,Brulin, G . 2009.Organizing interactive research in a Triple Helix context-a Mode III perspective (Paper presented at the HSS09 Confrence in Luleå,June 2009), http://www.google.com, accessed on 18/07/2009 Wibowo ,T.H. 2005. The emergence of Papuan Tribal Governance: A case study of societal knowledge creation (PhD dissertation), http://www.google.com, accessed on 1/20/2008. Wignjosoebroto,S .2006. Grounded Research: Apa dan Bagaimana in Metode Peneltian Sosial, Berbagai Alternatif Pendekatan (Bagong Suyanto, Sutinah (Ed)), pp 191-195. Wikipedia. Axiology , http://www.en.wikipedia.org,accessed on 1/19/2010 Wikipedia. Value Theory, http://www.en.wikipedia.org,accessed on 1/19/2010 Takeuchi,H. 1998. Beyond Knowledge Management: Lessons from Japan, http://www.sveiby.com.au/LessonsJapan.htm. Acknowledgments: I dedicate this paper for my teacher,Prof.Dr. Salladien (University of Malang)who passed away in 2011, who ever guided me Mixed Methods and had excellent lectures of Qualitative Approach. Big Leung,PhD (RMIT University,Melbourne-Australia) who firstly introduced me a Grounded Theory. My sincere thanks go to Prof.Dr.Djumilah Zain,SE,:Prof.Armanu Thoyib,SE.,M.Sc,Ph.D and Dr.Mintarti Rahayu,SE.,MS (Brawijaya University) for most valuable supports as my promoter and co promoters during Study in Doctorate in Management Science. 15